05/30/2026
UPDATE: Both Sides Have Filed Their Briefs in the "Motion to Enforce Agreement" in Sheriff Nick Smith's Criminal Case
Late last night, both the defense and prosecution filed the briefs ordered by Judge Doug Farris following the hearing on Sheriff Nick Smith's Motion to Enforce Agreement.
After reading both filings, my overall impression remains largely unchanged from the conclusion of the hearing. Neither side presented much that was truly "new." Instead, the briefs largely formalize the arguments made in court. However, one side focused primarily on proving a legally enforceable agreement existed, while the other focused on explaining why the legal requirements for such an agreement were never met.
For those who have not followed every twist and turn of this case, the issue before Judge Farris is not whether Sheriff Smith is guilty or innocent of the criminal charges. The question is much narrower:
Did the defense and the State actually reach a legally enforceable agreement requiring dismissal of the charges?
The defense says yes.
The State says no.
Judge Farris now has to decide which position is supported by the evidence.
WHAT THE DEFENSE FILED
The defense filing consists primarily of an affidavit from attorney Charles Tatum, who largely repeats the testimony he gave during the hearing.
Tatum again states his belief that an agreement existed and adds several additional assertions. Most notably, he claims that ADA Bryan Warren told him District Attorney Bill Adair ultimately refused to honor the agreement because it was too close to the election. He further claims that Warren later acknowledged an agreement had been reached but never expected it would become public.
Tatum also attached an advertisement for a fundraiser hosted by ADA Warren and his wife for Sheriff candidate J.C. Poe.
The problem, from a legal standpoint, is that none of those assertions directly establish the elements Judge Farris must find in order to enforce an oral agreement. Even if every statement in the affidavit were accepted as true, the central question remains:
Was there actually a completed agreement?
The affidavit largely offers Tatum's interpretation of conversations rather than objective evidence showing a final agreement was reached.
WHAT THE STATE FILED
The State's brief takes a different approach.
Rather than focusing on disputed conversations, it focuses on the legal requirements necessary before a court can enforce an alleged plea agreement.
The State argues the defense must prove:
1. That a binding agreement actually existed.
and
2. That the defense relied on that agreement to its detriment.
The State repeatedly argues that negotiations are not the same thing as an agreement. According to the prosecution, discussions occurred, but no final meeting of the minds was ever reached.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR THE DEFENSE
In my opinion, the most significant issue remains the lack of objective evidence.
At the hearing:
• ADA Warren testified there was no agreement.
• Charles Tatum testified there was.
• No written agreement was produced.
• No signed agreement was produced.
• No joint motion was ever filed.
• No consent order was ever presented to the court.
• No independent witness testified that a final agreement had been reached.
At its core, the defense is asking Judge Farris to accept one attorney's recollection of events over another attorney's recollection of events.
That is a difficult burden when the requested remedy is dismissal of criminal charges returned by a grand jury.
THE NEW AFFIDAVIT MAY CREATE ITS OWN PROBLEM
One thing that stood out to me is that Tatum's affidavit introduces several new allegations after the hearing concluded.
The difficulty is that those allegations are not independently corroborated within the filing itself.
Even if Judge Farris finds those statements credible, they still do not necessarily establish offer, acceptance, mutual assent, authority, and detrimental reliance, which are the elements the Court must ultimately evaluate.
In other words, the affidavit may raise questions about Warren's credibility, but it does not necessarily answer the legal question before the Court.
THE CONSIDERATION ISSUE
One aspect of this case that continues to bother me is the nature of the alleged "consideration" offered by the defense.
According to the defense, the alleged agreement involved:
• Attempting to withdraw a BAR complaint.
• Not filing a mandamus petition in Ralph Williams' case.
• Not running negative political advertisements.
• Issuing a joint press statement.
• Dismissing the criminal charges.
• Seeking favorable treatment from APOSTC.
That raises a question I think every reader should consider:
What does any of that have to do with the actual criminal allegations contained in the indictment?
The indictment alleges that Sheriff Smith knowingly employed individuals as law enforcement officers despite knowing they lacked required APOSTC certification. Whether those allegations are true remains for the criminal case to determine.
But if the allegations are true, how does withdrawing a BAR complaint change those facts?
How does a political truce change those facts?
How does a joint press release change those facts?
How does abandoning a mandamus petition in a different case change those facts?
Those things may have value to Nick Smith, but they do not appear to have any direct relationship to whether the conduct alleged in the indictment occurred or addressing the criminal act of violating the law. In fact, as the prosecution has maintained, those things are all self-serving for the defense; the people, represented by the prosecution, are apparently just supposed to drop the whole matter and walk away like all is well, it was a joke, nothing to see here, and nevermind. But we are past that point. A grand jury, comprised of Walker County citizens (and not us "meddling podcasters") found enough probable cause to issue an indictment.
The BAR complaint issue is particularly interesting because the State argues that once the complaint was filed, neither side could simply make it disappear. The Alabama State Bar independently evaluates complaints and determines whether they have merit. If that is correct, then one of the central pieces of alleged consideration may have had little or no actual value from the beginning because neither side truly controlled its outcome anyway.
THE AUTHORITY QUESTION
Another issue that remains significant is authority.
In ordinary criminal cases, assistant district attorneys routinely negotiate procedural matters and plea discussions. However, this case is not an ordinary misdemeanor theft case or traffic case. It involves criminal indictments returned by a grand jury against the elected Sheriff of Walker County.
Because of that, it seems reasonable that any final agreement resulting in dismissal of those charges would require approval from the elected District Attorney himself.
The hearing established that ADA Warren was not a "Chief Deputy District Attorney" and did not occupy some separate position of authority over the office. The State's brief repeatedly emphasizes that Adair never approved the alleged agreement and that Warren testified he did not possess unilateral authority to dispose of the case.
MY PERSONAL OPINION
After reviewing the testimony, exhibits, and now the briefs, I continue to believe this situation looks far less like:
"The State backed out of a completed plea agreement"
and far more like:
"There were discussions and negotiations, but the parties never finalized a binding agreement."
Judge Farris does not have to decide whether negotiations occurred. Everyone agrees they did.
The question is whether those negotiations produced a final agreement that can legally compel dismissal of criminal charges against an elected sheriff.
Based on everything presented so far, I still believe the defense faces a very steep uphill battle on that issue.
Judge Farris will now review the briefs and issue a written ruling. Whatever that ruling is, it will likely become one of the most closely examined judicial decisions in Walker County in recent years.
One final question for readers:
If the purpose of a criminal prosecution is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts alleged in an indictment, should agreements involving BAR complaints, campaign advertising, press releases, political relationships, or unrelated litigation have any bearing on whether those charges move forward?
That's ultimately not a political question. It's a question about the integrity of the criminal justice system.
